Welcome aboard Commodore Kevin; or is it Admiral. I think you said it all when you offered “in disabled unseaworthy boats were left to live or die”. People who venture out to the open oceans are always at risk. That risk is heightened if the boat is as you say ‘unseaworthy’.

To hold Australia responsible for the seaworthiness of the vast Indonesian fleet of fishing vessels and the sinking of any of that fleet is an exercise in obscurum per obscurius.

“SIEV X is the worst event in a shameful period of Australian official inhumanity to fellow human beings.”

I totally disagree. The Australian government was making every attempt, following the Tampa incident, to stop this movement of asylum seekers. They wanted to see this terribly risky practice of jumping on rickety boats stopped once and for all, for the good of all involved.

I reject the notion that this whole episode was “shameful” on the part of our government. It would have been utterly shameful if they had allowed the continuation of unseaworthy craft sailing towards our shores, with no doubt further SIEV X – type disasters resulting.

We should look back on the SIEV X horror as a powerful indication of why the whole boat people / refugee / asylum seeker issue had to be dealt with, and very strongly so at the time.

“Fortunately the people of Australia are not afraid to honour SIEV X as a major human tragedy in Australia’s history of migration.”

Absolutely. And so it should be remembered, in a very high-profile way on each anniversary.

But in a somewhat different light to yours: Most Australians can see the imperative of the time to halt this asylum-seeker movement to Australia, and to deal with it in very different ways; through the UN, through international aid programs, our official offshore refugee programs, bilateral relations with source countries, assistance from non-government organisations and so on.

“I now believe SIEV X sank at the height of a covert undeclared war between powerful Indonesian national security elements that had encouraged and protected so-called people smugglers in Indonesia …”

Wow!

All the more reason for Australia to take strong action against the whole business then, I would say.

Tony Kevin, I admire your passion and humanity. But half of your expression on this whole subject seems to be missing – the half concerning Australia’s rightful border-protection and rightful stop to the agony that desperate people go through if they think they can simply come to this country outside of formal channels. With respect, it does seem a tad unbalanced.

Both these respondents miss Tony Kevin’s point: that SIEV X and (perhaps) other refugee groups were desperate cases that demanded an immediate humane intervention. His case is that Australia ignored the death of 350 innocent people because they were pawns in a larger international dispute. That is what is ‘a tad unbalanced’. If a man is dying of a heart attack on your doorstep, the response is to give him CPR, not to build a hospital – imperative though that may be.

“My original questions remain unanswered. One day they will be answered”, writes dear old, obsessive Tony who has so little to do he declares an ‘anniversary’ for the drowning of risk-taking would-be illegal entrants to Australia and, as usual, tries to find Australia in some way culpable.

Most Australians have forgotten about the incident, and do not give two hoots about answers.

Tony Kevin like that other Australia-hater, Greg Barnes, is best ignored

We stand at the brink of a world Nuclear crisis and Tony Kevin dredges up......

SIEV X.

No Tony, sorry, it does not matter squat now.

You seem to have the view that we can dredge up every aspect of inhumanity and suddenly like a man who suddenly got 'religion' our government is going to 'see the light'.

There are FAR more pressing examples of inhumanity MUCH closer to home and FAR more FIXABLE than this feable attempt to politicize for the advantage of the Greens, something way out of left field.

I'd rather see the tragedy of Cherbourg town fixed. Restore the infrastructure that the Qld Government ripped out in 86 when it told the aboriginals to 'swim or sink'.

I'd love to see the injustice done to Melbourne Aboriginals who were shuffled from pillar to post and reservation to reservation.. fixed but ...

again.. we hear 'SIEV X'... why ?

Most likely because for some reason escaping most of us, the Greens think it is a winner, when in reality all the persuit of such issues does is confirm the political and social irrelevance of the Greens.
(and the..DEM...hang on..it will come in a moment.. aah..gotit remembered now "Democrats"...)

If you dredge up anything to do with illegal arrivals to Australia, you will get the same counter arguments from us, about why they left countries where they have safety.. to country shop to Australia. Then we go round in circles where you and Marilyn tell us 'They are not illegal' then we tell you "As far as we are concerned they are" then you mutter about the UN this or that, and we say "Change our signatory status to provide for exceptions" and so on.

I would humbly add - nope - forget humility - I would add with arrogant self righteousness - that seems to be the theme here over and over again - that the guy has a point - the answers do need to be found;

I dont hold with the they chose to come here in a leaky boat crap - nor do I care that there may or may not be other things on the horizon - of course I did bag out Greg Barnes for bringing up the republic again as old news - but hey - thats my right

As it is the authros right to dwell no matter how long on the fate of the SIEV X and our role in its demise - that is what we do that is an Australian value - the capacity to canvass many views on many issues and search for a truth.

And your right Boaz D there is an impasse in this debate over asylum seekers - but you are allowed to be right every now and again

Sage “To hold Australia responsible for the seaworthiness of the vast Indonesian fleet of fishing vessels and the sinking of any of that fleet is an exercise in obscurum per obscurius.”

Exactly Sage, wellput.

DNB “other refugee groups were desperate cases that demanded an immediate humane intervention.”
The world is full of “desperate cases”, some in Australia and others overseas.

That is fact. Another fact, the primary responsibility of the Australian government is to represent the Australian population who elected them to office. Government should not be sidetracked or blackmailed by those who subvert the processes of legal migration because of claims and perceptions of their “desperation”.

David_BOAZ “No Tony, sorry, it does not matter squat now.”

It did not matter squat when it happened, except to those who, through their own selfish attempts to queue-jump, drowned.

Out trot Sage and co with the same spurious arguments who fail after five years to understand the basic facts of this tragedy and seem to have so little respect for human life they simply shrug so let's look at who these people were and where they came from.

1. 146 were children and 3 babies were born in the sea. This boat was only the second boat with over 400 people on it and only the second boat where the people are known to have been loaded on at gunpoint by Indonesian police with the help of the AFP. Mick Keelty is now pretending to be ever so respectable but at the time he was running phoney "people smuggling" operations.
2. The maps Tony is talking about have whited out a rescue boat that we know very well was rescuing refugees at a particular time of day on 20 October 2001. Who whited out that boat and why? Who sent that boat and why? The records show that 2 hours flying time were lost at the time of the rescue of 44 souls - why, what were the pilots doing?
3. It is legal to come to Australia anyway possible to seek protection and that is still our law. No matter how much you rant about "illegals" and so on it simply is not true and never was.
4. The people on that boat were from Iraq. We were blockading Iraq, stealing $300 million from Iraq and helping to torture and starve the population.
5. Only 7 of the survivors ever made it to Australia but thousands of people all over the world had relatives who drowned but have never been notified of their deaths.
6. The AFP have the list of deaths but will not supply them.
7. They were human beings who should have been treated with respect and were not.

I love the christians like DB who dismiss these human lives as if they were nothing.

Keep it up, Marylin, the world needs so many many more like you. This Poster hasn't quite got the guts, though.

Call me crazy but if there is a firm suspicion that this boat sunk because of deliberate sabotage carried out on behalf of our own government and if the passengers then died as a direct consequence of our country turning its back on international rescue obligations, then I for one, would like to be sure about it.

This goes right to the heart of what sort of nation we really are.

No amount of official stonewalling or political obfuscation will change the truth, just delay it from coming out.

To blame the victims and suggest that this is a minor incident that just doesn’t matter anymore, devalues not only the lives of any innocent victims but somehow diminishes us all as a country.

For gods sake, won't someone buy Marilyn a new broom stick.

I tuned in for a fair bit of the Certain Maritime Incident hearings. I actually was hostile to what I thought was Tony Kevin's idea that Australia was somehow involved in the sinking or was deficient in it's duty of care to those on the Siev X.

My position changed as the hearings went on. The main thing that changed it for me was when Nick Keelty gave evidence. He seemed to me to be about as forthcoming as a brick. The 'it's operational' line so can't be discussed kept on being waved. We are expected to take it on trust that our officials and police acted in a above board manner... Surely I'm not the only one here to thinks that this is a open ticket to stray, there must be some openess and accountability.

I think that the Australian public has a right to know what our cops and public servants are doing overseas. I want there to be full disclosure on what the Government's disruption program was in Indonesia in 2001. I hope it will be found to be squeaky clean. But I want to see it done to make sure it is.

Oh Marilyn “where the people are known to have been loaded on at gunpoint by Indonesian police with the help of the AFP. Mick Keelty is now pretending to be ever so respectable but at the time he was running phoney "people smuggling" operations”

Someone accused me of being a liar here recently, the sort of troll who bandies such claims bereft of any evidence of same.

However, Marilyn, I challenge you, as a matter of public duty to bring that claim to court and have it heard so guilt of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police can be evidenced or at least make the evidence of such claims available to the mainstream Australian Media, The Age will certainly publish anything (which was even half true).

Alternatively I will be obliged to extend to you the brand “LIAR” to be attached to every other utterance you care to make in future.

This is your opportunity Marilyn, prove that what you claim is not a manifestation of your deluded thinking.

I, for one, am certain that such a scurrilous and libellous claims against the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police are a matter of complete fiction and that you, in proclaiming them here are a bare faced LIAR.

Here is your chance, Prove me wrong, prove to us all you are not a low down lying scumbag who is deluded by the extent of your own corruption!

I am stunned by the reaction of some posters on this issue. I now see why Tampa made so little difference to re-electing the Coalition last time.

While Tony's article does seem to have some conspiracy theorist elements to it, I support Wobbles posting. At the end of the day the truth matters and its why we have a liberal democracy not a totalitarian society. If the truth of the matter is above board then why is the Government so reluctant to open its files?

Yes Governments must represent their electorate but they must also lead. Many people want capital punishment, die in prison life sentences and so on but I'm glad governments don't bow to every demand. They need to lead too.

I wonder if those condemning boat people from the Middle East would have had the same attitude to Vietnamese boat people in the 70's. Something to think about after you enjoy your next good Vietnamese meal.

And to Mr Boaz all I can say is WWJD.

For heaven's sake Col Rouge, are you from outer space.

1. Ross Coulthart found Kevin John Ennis, people smuggler, whom the AFP paid $25,000 to set up sting operations from Indonesia. There were others but he was the main one. Mick Keelty is still to answer some 37 questions posed by the Sunday program about this activity and Mick Keelty has never denied it.
2. When called to the senate over and over again Keelty refused to answer any questions and in the end demanded immunity from prosecution.
3. Mick Keelty and the AFP trained several groups of Indonesian police to stop refugee boats, to rip off refugees, to put holes in the bottom of boats - they bragged about it for god's sake.
4. It was the AFP who first alerted the Austalian authorities in Canberra that this boat had left and "was overdue", which is pretty strange for a boat they claimed never existed.

If you want to chide me, to ridicule me and to question my right to tell the truth go right ahead, but it does not take away the truth.

Keelty is the same thug who defends turning in Austrailan's knowing they will be shot and it was the AFP who helped DIMA use phoney passports and Pakistani documents to illegally cancel Afghan refugee visas.

All of this is on the public record and has been for years. I want to know why these innocent people had to die.

Tony,
I am obliged to take you seriously when, as a former diplomat, you characterize the background against which this tragedy occurred in terms of it being an "undeclared war between powerful Indonesian national security elements....and Australian national security agencies determined to stop this plan...". I fear you cause our ship of State to sail very close to the winds of war. There will be many who will read for the two elements which you have named, 'Indonesia' and 'Australia' respectively, and that is something that neither President Yudhyono nor the Prime Minister of this country, let alone the respective peoples at large, need.
In war, as you know, one of the first casualties is truth. Given that war is the background against which you have cast these alleged Australian (in)actions, you call to mind the scene from the bridge of the Compass Rose in the film 'The Cruel Sea', one in which merchant seamen survivors of a sinking were in the water, and beneath them was thought to be a lurking U-boat. The survivors anticipated rescue, but the Compass Rose was a convoy escort corvette. The survivors were all killed by depth-charges dropped on the first pass. They were, of course, innocent civilians. The captain had to make the dreadful decision to fulfil his role at the cost of their lives, in order to possibly prevent the same situation from occurring again to other crews.
The Cruel Sea is a work of fiction. It nevertheless typifies aspects of war at sea that were acknowledged fact-like the case of the sailor from the cruiser who, as his ship was ordered under way from an unfinished rescue of survivors of the Bismarck, leaned right out from the gunwal to pull just one more German sailor on board. He was subsequently charged for leaving his ship without permission.
Injustice abounds. The worst thing that can be done is to in any way facilitate this potentially fatal trade in human misery by giving any encouragment to the desperate to take the risk. This guilt trip risks that.

Hi Marilyn, I thought you might drag out the "you're a bad Christian" card..... There is another side to that abusive coin you know, and it would come back on you.

If I allowed myself to feel compassion for every hard done by individual in this world, I'd be an emotional wreck. I feel for the Christians and animists of Southern Sudan, of Darfur, for the persecuted Christians of Ambon and Sulawisi, for the Aborignals of Melbourne.. of ..of...of...

Bear in mind Marilyn, if I was seeking to immorally enter another country and knew the risks, why should I feel they 'owed' me anything ?
They would owe me squat. If I try to rob a bank, and it so happens I trigger a security device which disables me... I have nothing to offer but that I got caught fair and square.

Marilyn, if I bore the worlds ills I'd be a nervous wreck like you, seething with:
a) Self righteousness
b) rage and hate against anyone disagreeing.

I've yet to see a syllable of 'I might be wrong on that' from you, not a consonant even. Me ? I've apologised on 2 major occasions because I was wrong on fact. I don't speak from 'self' righteousness, but from responsible social policy viewpoint and with the best interests of this country at heart. (whether u agree with that or not)

But anyway, this kind of issue will simply highlight the dividing line between your mob and mine ideologically speaking. I see it as pretty much a waste of time. There are much bigger issues at hand.

Which begs the question DB, what does 'your mob' represent? Christian principle does not feature large in your previous post.

Perhaps DB missed the good samaritan story.

Some comments make a good point - ignoring this or pretending it didn't happen in no way holds our public figures to account. We have failed as a nation to make our officials accountable to us, as they are supposed to be, and instead are happy to make ourselves accountable to them

bushbred:

"Keep it up, Marylin, the world needs so many many more like you."

I agree.

Col Rouge:

" LIAR.

Here is your chance, Prove me wrong, prove to us all you are not a low down lying scumbag who is deluded by the extent of your own corruption! "

Exemplary eloquence. Temperance, humanity and reason personified. The words of a worthy citizen.

Boaz:

"If I allowed myself to feel compassion for every hard done by individual in this world, I'd be an emotional wreck."

I guess that's what differentiates me from you, old mate. Some of us can feel compassion and just get on with trying to do something constructive about it.

Those who can't do that, preach.

And more directly on topic:

Many thanks to Tony Kevin for this article, and for his original efforts in alerting us to this most shameful episode.

I truly can't comprehend the sheer inhumanity implicit in some of the more callous comments above.

Well said CJ.

What saddens me about some of these statements is that they imply that compassion is selective, limited and based on dubious circumstances.

To say that because these people (including children) were acting immorally they somehow deserved to die in that way.

If our government was indeed complicit in this sad affair it also means that if the boat actually reached the mainland and the passengers were then all executed without trial, then that would be OK too. Same motive, same result, slightly different method.

Marilyn,
Good on you! Never give an inch and never back down! I sometimes suspect the detail but never doubt your integrity and humanity.

BD - I dont know that seeking to enter into another country as an immoral act as you describe it - and even if it it was I certainly would expect to be treated with a degree of humanity - whxih at present they are not.

If a drug smuggling sailor(with a history of peadophilia)jumped ship near Queenscliff, was washed ashore and in an attempt to stay alive killed an ate a blind returned soldier AND his guide dog who were on their way to church - the Korean would get a fairer deal than an asylum seeker.

I trust the view is clear from up there on the high horse.

With kindest regards - the Sneekemeister -

If Australians sank SIEV X (for which there is no convincing evidence), it was a monstrous crime, and unnecessary to boot, as detention can provide adequate deterrence. On the general issue, I agree with DB that compassion has to be selective. We have 6.5 going on 9 billion people on a planet that can sustainably support perhaps 2 billion in modest comfort *if* we do everything right. I accept that First World elites are responsible for some of the mess the world is in, but not all or even most of it. It was the much maligned US that also sponsored the Green Revolution that has doubled food production since the 1960s.

If the other Third World countries had followed the example of Taiwan and South Korea they would be in nothing like the mess they are in today. Instead they chose to use the gains to "feed more hungry people, rather than feeding hungry people more". Many of them clung to customs that had become dysfunctional, some of them in violation of basic human rights, and supported corrupt and incompetent leaders. We can (and should) give them some help to fix their problems, but most of the effort will have to come from them. Allowing them to export their dissidents and their surplus population to us is not part of the solution. Reform is happening in places like Brazil and Venezuela but not in Mexico where unemployment and other problems can be exported to the US.

The difference here is not between those who have or lack compassion, but on whether we believe we have special obligations to fellow countrymen, given that there is not enough to go around. The "internationalists" don't care particularly about disadvantaged Australians, provided that they are better off than African peasants. The rest of us do.

Dear_CJ,Wobbles_ and_ Sneeky.(Thanx2divergence)

It appears that CJ has deliberately scanned my posts of any morsel of data which can be repackaged under Marilyn’s banner “Bad Christian”.

Why you have deliberately neglected to take my comments in CONTEXT ?
That being “relative priority of fixable and less fixable tragedies”.
-like herding of Aboriginals into reservations was less deserving of sustained attention?

Then, you went one step further “I guess thats what differentiates me from you”... which sounds a lot like a particular Pharisee(Luke_18:9-14)

"Two men went up into the temple to pray;
one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this:
‘God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. (OrBOAZ, the AFP_and Coalition)
I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.’But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn’t even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying,
‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." .

My problem with Tony Kevin, and Marilyn S etc. -They are like the Pharisee.
But claiming “political” righteousness, while they themselves are undermining the whole country.

Me ? I don’t claim any particular righteousness, I point to Christ’s. I recognize that I am a weak and shameful human.

But I know blatant, scurrilous political opportunism when I smell it, and the STENCH of it in Tony’s article is overpowering and sickening.

The deliberate, calculated misuse of immigration for political ends by ethno religious/leftist groups is tantamount to WAR, and our treatment of such is accordingly harsh.
The ADF are right. “enemies” some of which are from ‘within’.

There are MANY dehumanized people closer to home. Much higher in the “need” pecking order.
Why focus on these foreign opportunists who chose to cross the highway in front of the 18 wheeler ?

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. The hypothesis declared in the 6th last paragraph does make sense. Therefore, don't we as Australians have a right to be told by those in charge of our national security what was going on and why our security was being targeted by elements of a foreign government. The real criminals were the people smugglers (not the innocent refugee victims) and those in Indonesia using them for political purposes. That is the real question that is being ignored in all these stupid posts.

And another thing. The people who died (mostly from Iraq and Afghanistan) were overwhelming genuine refugees and innocent victims. The regimes they fled were so extreme and vile that we were prepared to send our troops to free the people living there. You can't get a refugee situation more extreme than that.

BD The skeemeister rejects your lumping him in with others

Tony is pursuing a point of veiw he is a bit of a pedant but he's having a go - as I said above that is a real Aussie value - if there are questions to be answered let them be aired - if the truth brings down the nation so be it.

And as for WAR give us all a break - we always seem to get back to this theme of us being over run by them - the randy proslytising immigrant theory - so powerful and persuasive we must with stand him at every turn - fight them on the beaches (oops we already done that in Cronulla)

Being an objective critic of policy is hardly being an enemy from within - it might make you a realist though - what does it matter that some of us reject every thing or some things the government says or does? and argue in every forum that they are wrong misguided or inept - so what if it undermines harmony and security? if it cant with stand the criticism it and all around it deserves to crumble to dust -

If we are at war and you contend we are - being white anted by the ethno-religious left must only be the beginning - there must be a next step surely - what do you think it is?

- what do you propose to do with us? - what do you propse to do with the likes of me who think our immigration policy is evil spiteful and rascist - who thinks the war in Iraq is a sham as is the war on terror? - sure there are terrorist but personally I dont give a damn ; because in the scheme of things they have done not much.

what is yout logical conclusion to deal with the likes of Tony, Malcolm Fraser, Julian Burnside, David Marr, David Williamson, Ex Governor General Dean, Petro Giorgiou -education capms - perhaps rendition to Christams Island?

Tony Kevin,
You should build a permanent memorial where the SievX sailed from, as a constant reminder to others that the voyage to Australia is hazardous. The sinking of the SievX is a matter for Indonesia but I reckon that for your approaches to them, for a inquiry, you were told to go and jump. So you are trying it on here.

The facts are that the SievX was unseaworthy and grossly overloaded.
Some passengers demanded to be let off,and were, well before she sank. It was not the first siev vessel to sink on such a trip. The people the Tampa picked were from a sinking boat.

A year or so ago, a bloke called Smith and Marylin Sheperd put the same article in another blog. They then claimed ADF personel were racist because, according to them, Sievx people were left to drown. They also said that a much greated effort was put in to find the missing Aust Customs boat off Cape York "near where the SievX sank",to make their "racist" point.
Sievx sank near Indonesia some 3000kls from Cape York, but stretching the truth does not matter to these people.

The claims by Kevin and Sheperd should not be given the time of day.

It must be a girl thing as boys always tell me they cannot think of two things at once.

DB seems to think it is immoral to seek protection from persecution when in fact it is a universal right in global law. What is immoral is dropping bombs on people in another country just because you can.

Wobbles, I never write anything until I have the facts at my fingertips and on this story I have spent 5 years helping to find those facts.

It is a fact that the AFP were organising phoney people smuggling exercises, sinking boats and using bribes and training the Indon. police. They still are.

In each and every case before the TAMPA there were no 'people smugglers" talked about, simply because the reality is that Australia knew very well there were none.

In October 1999 Ali Bakhtiyari gave DIMA the name and address of a Pakistani "smuggler" named Hassan Ayoub and his side kicks name. This Ayoub continued unabated until after the TAMPA and when he was finally charged he was not charged with the boat that brought Ali, Roqia and his kids in 2001.

Do you know why? People have a right to come to Australia to seek our protection under the refugee convention therefore they are not being smuggled into Australia. The only place smuggling is required is out of their own countries and into nations that have not signed the refugee convention and who send people back to their deaths - like Malaysia and Indonesia.

OK? Now I want to know why those people died and why the feds never tried to get Abu Quassey.

If, as some posters persist in saying, these people were genuine dinki di "refugees" why didn't they go to the nearest Islamic country. Why pay to risk their lives trying to sneak into a WESTERN country?
They probably crossed muslim nations, they stayed in Indonesia a muslim nation.
Go back to drinking your latte Tony.

"The deliberate, calculated misuse of immigration for political ends by ethno religious/leftist groups is tantamount to WAR"...but it's OK if your rightwing government does it.

Which reminds me. Jesus was a leftie. Pretty religious too. AND ethnic.

mickijo

A refugee is a person seeking asylum in a foreign country in order to escape persecution, war, terrorism, extreme poverty, famines, or natural disaster. Some regional legal instruments further include those seeking to escape generalized violence in the definition of a refugee. Those who seek refugee status are sometimes known as asylum seekers and the practice of accepting such refugees is that of offering political asylum. The most common asylum claims to industrialized countries are based upon political and religious grounds.

Under the 1951 United Nations (UN) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol, a signatory nation must grant asylum to refugees and cannot forcibly return refugees to their nations of origin. However, many nations routinely ignore this treaty.

The asylum seekers on SIEV X were Iraqi, they had every right under the convention signed by our Government to seek asylum in Australia.

If you believe Howard and Ruddock's lies about our international obligations you are a fool.

Maybe these people should have donated to Ruddock's "slush fund" they would now be Australian Citizens instead of being DEAD.

Thanks Steve,

I often don't have the energy to fill the gaps of ignorance that disguises itself as 'informed opinion' here.
I'm glad to see that you do, even if it is futile at times.

Hear hear. What Ranier said.

Divergence - Excellent Post

Although I would correct you –“The "internationalists" don't care particularly about disadvantaged Australians”

The internationalist care only for power and their dominance over the free thoughts and actions of others.
There “Socialism” is the failed crop which feeds no one and starves everyone.

Marilyn “but it does not take away the truth.” And nothing which you wrote supports the truth. It only supports only your misinterpretation and manipulation of supposed “events” so they conform to your angry viuew of everything – as someone wrote on another post – you parade your anger like a virtue. Shame it is not one.

Rogidon

“The people who died …were overwhelming genuine refugees and innocent victims.”

That assertion is a safe one to “claim”, when it can never be tested.

However, I claim that since they were all in Indonesian territory, a religiously "Muslim" country, like Iraq and Afghanistan, immediately before they set sail, they were beyond the wrath of the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and thus, not subject to “dire peril” and therefore not the "genuine refugees" but simply "Religious / Economic Opportunists" hell bent on their own selfish crusade to do everything to evade "Non-Muslim" Australia's migration tests and requirements.

If these people were truly "Innocent" and "Worthy", they would respect Australia's right to determine who comes here and wait there turn, like thousands of other do.

Col

What part of "A refugee is a person seeking asylum in a foreign country in order to escape persecution, war, terrorism, extreme poverty, famines, or natural disaster" don't you understand.

If you do not understand or do not like it I suggest you lobby your heroes to withdraw from the UN conventions our Government has signed.

The fact that Indonesia is not signatory to the UN convention means that they would be returned to Iraq.

"they would respect Australia's right to determine who comes here and wait there turn, like thousands of other do." (spelling error included)

This is a fallacy that has been spread by Howard, we either respect our international obligations or withdraw from them.

Of course we can import hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers to drive down wages, but we cannot help people seeking asylum.

Col, on the application forms for refugee claims it says under the section "any other countries where asylum could have been claimed" that Malaysia and Indonesia are exempt.

Article 31 of the refugee convention, which is enshrined in Australian law at article 36 of the migration act, says that no person shall be penalised due to lack of documents or method of entry - this is universally accepted throughout the entire world.

98% of those people you claim didn't respect us are now being made citizens of Australia after we tortured them for years on end.

About 50,000 people do break our migration rules every year when they come here and just forget to leave. The reason they are never charged with breaching our migration act is because all offences for being in Australia without a visa were removed from the act in 1992.

Mickijo, you have banged on about the muslim country rot for years and never read anything or listen to anyone. Indonesia might be a muslim country but they have never signed the refugee convention so they send people home to be killed.

Kapeesh? It makes no difference if asylum seekers in Indonesia drop in from the moon, Indonesia has the right to send them home.

We don't and we have not right to "deter" refugees - our own law says it is illegal to use detention or any other means to stop people seeking our help.

To insist still that the argument is rational is a bit like saying you have the right to turn up at an emergency room but not without an invitation and to get an invitation you have to be in the hospital.

There will be a memorial for the survivors next week - at least show them the same respect as we show the dead of the WTC and Bali.

sneekeepete and jimlab

I know your posts were supportive of Tony, but I thought your references to him being a pedant and a conspiracy theorist were unfairly denigrating of his efforts.

His search for the truth behind the official white-washing of this tragic event is in every way significant and worthwhile.

His analysis of the deals struck between the Indonesian and the Howard Government is both logical and well supported. And as he points out the recent intense lobbying between the two governments over the West Papuan arrivals only further supports his case.

Tony and Marilyn

At this point its mostly innuendo and arguments from silence.

Make Charges, stand by them, and be prepared for any legal action which might ensue.

Marilyn has made actionable charges:

"At gunpoint with the help of the AFP" is a very serious charge. It was not raised as a 'question' . It was not stated as 'opinion' but as fact.

Marilyn should expand this to indicate exactly what she means by 'with the help of'

SNEEKY..
I am not a member of any political party, and my religious standpoint would not bring me even a farthing of financial reward for my efforts.

Tony Kevin is a member of a political party, The Greens, and if he can successfully 'damage' the government, he stands to gain financially and politically. I am therefore very suspicious of the nobility and sincerity of his motives for the fate of "this" particular batch of people.

Could we be 'swamped'?

Fact 1.
[The backlog of asylum seekers in the UK in July 2000 was over 100 000] (link below)

Fact 2. Since 1985 the number of asylum seekers in Europe has outnumbered all legally admitted foreign workers.(28)

Fact 3. even though only a small minority of asylum seekers gain recognition (the rate of recognition in EU countries in the 1990s was ...10-15 per cent), only a minority of failed asylum seekers ever actually leave.

The true insidious nature of many assylum claims are found in the statistics of 'country shopping' which saw 90% of all assylum claims in Europe going to just 4 countries. England, Germany, Holland and Switzerland. Why ? Why not 'France' ? Simple- France understands 'persecution' to mean "The government must be complicit"
Why ? again simple, if not, anyone can claim persecution from anyone. (even their NEIGHBOUR) and goto the 4 countries listed.

So, there are many problems with the anachronistic UN Charter.
see here for details
http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RP/2000-01/01RP05.htm#problems

Claiming 'technical' refugee status is tantamount to a defense lawyer, while knowing his client is 'obviously guilty' will use any trick to get them off.

David BOAZ “Marilyn has made actionable charges:

"At gunpoint with the help of the AFP" is a very serious charge. It was not raised as a 'question' . It was not stated as 'opinion' but as fact.”

Exactly David as I wrote previously to Marilyn

“as a matter of public duty to bring that claim to court and have it heard so guilt of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police can be evidenced”

But will she – no, she is happy to libel a senior Police Officer but does not want to do anything which would “test” the honesty (as in without of lies or innuendo) of her claim.

Regarding swamping, doubtless the most successful strategy is one which supports the right of Australians to decide, through the elected government, who will be allowed to come to Australia and who will not. No one wants the riots which France experienced.

The problem is, these leftie and greenie trolls all assume the woes of the world are “Western” made.

Whereas the problem with much of the developing world is their capacity to abuse their own citizenry and the corruption which comes from entrenched racism and tribalism.

Steve Madden suggests Malaysia and Indonesia are exempt from accepting refugees (another Kyoto?).

Australia should apply for the same exemption.

When defacto “Muslim” countries are exempt from accepting Muslim refugees, it is reasonable to assume that a defacto “Christian” country should likewise be exempt (not that I have anything personally against Muslims but the “reasoning” would seem to me to be pretty straight forward).

If we are to accept refugees then those refugees should understand that they are here not as a natural right but there acceptance of refugee status puts certain obligations onto them. Assimilation into the existing culture being first and foremost.

Of course the real reason the “internationalists” seek waves of oppressed refugees?
Like El Qaeda, they see refugees as the best place to pick up recruits. Who could be more “disenfranchised” and vulnerable to insidious torrent of lies from the "left", than a refugee from a third world country ?

I must thank Tony Kevin for his dedication to this important issue.

Do you remember Philip Ruddock receiving a standing ovation?
Do you remember the infamous "Border Protection Bill 2001" ?
All four pages of it. Read it to appreciate just what drives this Government.

Thank you also Marilyn Shepherd. Never mind the blowies.

An old friend, a refugee from laos, showed me how to swat blowies.
You will observe that a blowie can not walk and fly at the same time. Just hit it when it starts to walk.

CHINA ... 1 CHILD and PERSECUTION.....SIEV X... UN CHARTER.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1995/5.html
Hard going, but very valuable to fellow Aussie cultural warriors.

IF...we sorted out our signatory status once and for all, there would NEVER be any reason to indulge in questionable tactics as suggested by Kevin and Shepherd !

Off topic ? not at all, its all part of the WAR being fought over Australia's status re the UN convention.
This is what, in a legal framework might be termed "Showing true motivation" of those making a noise about this present issue.

I'd love to know where Tony Kevin and Marilyn Shepherd stand on the issue of the succesful claims made by some Chinese 'assylum seekers' that they were 'members of a particular social group' i.e. those who risked persecution by the State if they had more than one child !

When those claims were successful, we stood at the brink of probably MILLIONS of Chinese being lawfully accepted as 'Refugees'. The government quickly proposed changes to legislation which would defeat this and it was FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

a) Why was it fought? (to undermine our social cohesian)
b) by Whom ? (Internationalist/leftists/globalization social terrorists)
c) what would the outcome be if it was defeated ? (The destruction of Australian Identity, and its replacement with an 'international' Identity)

So, I ask Marilyn and Tony.. "Did you support the changes in the Migration act" regarding THIS issue... or not ?

If the answer is 'NO' then we have a clear indication that the real motive for seeking to highlight this Siev X issue is not in fact 'compassion' but in reality, the determined and deliberate, culturally seditious act of undermining our whole social fabric through illegal or at least immoral immigration for political ends.

Col Rouge believes that "refugees should understand that they are here not as a natural right but the acceptance of refugee status puts certain obligations onto them. Assimilation into the existing culture being first and foremost."

So refugees, once found guilty of the crime of being persecuted and hounded out of their country of origin, face the just punishment of being forced to abandon the culture and beliefs of their homeland, which they left only because they faced mortal danger there.

Did I miss something?

Col, would you care to enlighten us from where this moral obligation to assimilate arises? Why must people who are chased out of their homeland by machete-wielding maniacs be forced to abandon their identity too? That would make the machete-wielders' victory complete, wouldn't it? (and make us complicit in the process, to boot).

I would have thought that Christian teaching pretty much morally obliges anyone who calls themself a Christian to offer refuge to the victims of persecution and violence. I wasn't aware of the teaching that those who receive shelter are thenceforth obliged to become Samaritans. Care to provide a reference for it?

Guess you must have a clearer understanding of these things.

Col, Malaysia and Indonesia are exempt because they have not signed the refugee convention not because they are muslim countries.

David, you are a cruel, hard person disguised as a human creature and your diatribe against Chinese refugees reflects more on you than anyone else. As a matter of fact some 15,000 Chinese asylum seekers have come to Australia since 1989 and many thousands of them are still here including many women who had second children and feared persecution or forced abortions.

Is there some sort of strange disconnect between the brains of some on this forum? Col, the information about the Fed Police people smuggling has been covered on the Sunday Program, 7.30 report, in the senate extensively, in most of the print media, statements from the federal police and I have stated my case hundreds of times just as I do today and not once has any fed. come to arrest me.

"David, ...a cruel, hard person ...and your diatribe against Chinese refugees...."

Marilyn ...

In short, my 'diatribe' is against lax immigration policy.

You are misunderstanding my promotion of sound and responsible border control policy with being heartless and cruel. I know you well enough now by your posts to understand that this is your standard way of disagreeing, ad hominem.

EXPLANATION
I don't have any animosity against Chinese as a race.
The issue here is NOT an individual person in dire circumstances, it is POLICY.

We need to examine the other side of the coin which you are tossing into the air.

If the policy was clear, well defined, there would be no question about the status of such a person. The reason this occurred is because of a perceived loophole and vague definition in the UN convention about 'particular social group' meaning.

You are focusing on ONE person, and then, stating that there are many others in the same situation already here, thus you seem to be suggesting that its good for many. Ok.. now the important bit..HOW MANY ? There are 2 options.

1/ All those in similar circumstances in China
2/ Only those who can manage to 'get here'.

Actually, both those points are the same.
So, DO YOU support the idea of ALL or ANY Chinese who are threatened by the government policy on one child being able to come to Australia so they can have more children and live a new life ?

Please answer this carefully and specifically, bearing in mind, that once it becomes KNOWN that Australia is the preferred destination for those in these circumstances, many many many will seek to come here.
In fact.. in a country of a billion people we could quite conceivably find ourselves confronted by numbers approaching our whole current population !

So, clearly a policy response is needed. Call this heartless and cruel if you wish, but is it not the same towards our own if we don't protect our country from overpopulation ?

Would you agree to an annual quota or open slather ?

There are many countries that are partisipants in the UN convention on refuges, including a number of Islamic countries.
Australia and NZ are the furtherest such countries from Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries can be Googled up if anyone is sufficiently interested.

Question. Why would these aslyum seekers want to go to a country furtherest away? Answer. Because of the moneytary benefits that our social security provides. Personal safety is secondary.

It may have made sense to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention after WWII when the refugee situation was entirely different, but it is a different world now. International agreements are not suicide pacts, and this one should be revoked. The Guardian recently had an article on 'Overshoot Day', the day of the year when mankind collectively exceeds the Earth's sustainable capacity for that year. Past that point we are effectively living on our environmental capital, degrading future resources for the sake of present consumption.

According to the Redefining Progress NGO, which publishes environmental footprints (a measure of consumption), the sustainable capacity per person (ratio of total environmental capacity to world population) is 1.8 hectares, as opposed to an environmental footprint of 9.5 hectares in the US and 7 hectares in Australia Australia. 1.8 is about the consumption level of El Salvador. If you compare the footprints with ranks on the UN Human Development Index you will see that below European levels of consumption (average of around 5) human well-being falls off. There are 5 billion people in the world who would have a better average standard of living in Mexico than at home. None of this considers how much worse things will be with continued population growth, peak oil, climate change, etc. Rwanda is just a taste of the fighting and genocides that are likely to occur with growing resource shortages.

Swamping is a very real possibility, as huge numbers of asylum seekers, genuine and otherwise, pour into the developed countries, apart from very remote ones like New Zealand or Iceland. Britain had 490,000 such claims (not counting immediate family members, who are also allowed in) between 1997 and 2004 (Migration Watch UK site). A few thousand refugees are not a problem, but families look after their own first, and so should countries.

Steve Madden and Marilyn, you should both get jobs writing such corn as "The Young and the Beautiful" or such , with violins sobbing in the background.
All your bleeding heart's sympathies are for the poor ,poor 'Asylum Seekers' who have paid big money to leave a SAFE Islamic country to shove themselves on a western nation and with hand out say, here we are feed us and shelter us and we want this! and we want that!
And we do not want to live by your laws because our sharia is far better .
One never senses a small skerrick of interest in anything Australian in your posts. The only feeling either of you have for Aussies is detestation. What a pity you do not find somewhere else more suitable to live.

OK, we are still dealing with the same tired old delusions that Ruddock peddled with the TAMPA and they were not true then and they are not true now.

About 1 million Iraqis have had to flee their homes in the last three years because of our actions. What should we do if they have to come on boats again because they cannot get legal travel documents? The first time around we owed them a moral obligation as refugees because we had blown up Iraq in 1990 with the US, ran blockades with sanctions, ignored the plight of the Kurds and Shi'ites whom Saddam was killing and so on.

Then we get to the additional protocol on refugees which became law in Austraila when we signed it on 3 December 1972 and then enshrined it in our law. In the protocol it makes it clear that geography is not a problem. When people fly here from Russia, Peru, Brazil, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, Fiji, Ukraine, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Lebanon and from all corners of the earth, from the other side of the earth we don't whinge and whine like spoilt, pathetic brats about them being queue jumpers.

In fact of the 70,000 asylum seekers Australia has had in the last 17 years only 14,000 came on boats and were automatically locked up. Over 12,000 of them are our neighbours. What happened to the others you ask? Nothing. They made their claims for refugee status according to our law.

Our law to this day does not exclude anyone from coming on a boat. I am sick to death of the ignorance, the bigotry and outright stupidity shown by grown men and women who only have to note that 98% of those evil queue jumpers still live here and thousands of them are now permanent residents and even citizens.

Which puts the lie to the stupid argument that they could have stopped elsewhere or that they had to stop elsewhere.

Marilyn... still waiting for specific answers rather than shotgun blasts of emotive name calling. But.. I don't mind a name_or_2.

The people on the Siev X (for Tony's benefit also)
COULD have gone to the following close and easy to get to countries.

Countries CLOSER than Australia who are signatories[S] to the UN convention OR have ratified [R] it.

Azerbaijan. Accession 1993
Turkmenistan Accession 1988 (Closest to Afghanistan)
Turkey 1951 (R+S) (CLOSEest to Iraq/Iran)
Netherlands 1951 (R+S)
Italy 1952 (R+S)
Israel 1951 (R+S)
Greece 1952 (R+S)
Germany 1952 (R+S)
France 1951 (R+S)
IRAN 1976 (R)
Eqypt 1981 (R)

There are in fact many others.

At this point we have ask some down to earth questions.

First.. in order to establish MOTIVE we need to remove the 'out' of "they can choose any country" because clearly this would fail the test of 'reasonableness' if it can be shown that there were either family or economic grounds for them coming to Australia, rather than any of the other countries.
It would fail that test, due to the nature of the Convention, which is simply to offer a safe haven in the light of feared persecution.

Reasonableness, requires that the nearest country with the least risk would be the chosen destination. Instead, they have chosen to take the FURTHEST country with the MOST risk. Thus, I find that their journey to Australia is unreasonable in terms of the convention, and their applications should be disallowed on these grounds.

It may be countered "There IS no 'test of reasonableness'". And I would simply add 'not yet'. But in time it will come, just as the 'particular social group' term in the convention was defined by Australia NOT to mean those threatened by the one child policy of the Chinese government.

Clearly also, to defy the lawful policy of a government, by having another child, constitutes a crime, which further disallows acceptance as a refugee under the scope of the convention.

Covert Actions by intelligence agencies enter the blurry water of touch and go legally, and could be avoided by sound policy from the start.

Mickijo

Come on you can do better than that. Your attempts at ridicule and insults are as pathetic as your posts on OLO.

You should get over your hatred of anybody with different views to your own small minded bigotry.

Those nasty followers of Islam really get you scared don’t they? You are exactly the reason why our shameful Govt. gets away with its pretence of being tough on border protection when 50,000 real illegal immigrants arrive in Australia every year.

Get the TV show correct as well it is The Young and The Restless or The Bold and the Beautiful. Sorry I only worked on Number 96, Prisoner, Carson’s Law good Aussie shows.

My background is Irish. Watch out we are all terrorists as well :)

Surely when people risk their lives to come here claiming that they are refugees and frightened for their future, we should have the decency to respect their views and be polite and helpful.

After examination of their claims we may or may not decide that they they have a reasonable claim but at least treat them with dignity while they are here. Especially the children. Oppressing them in the way Howard and Ruddock are doing in order to discourage them is not to my taste.

It requires bravery or desperation to board an unsafe vessel, and don't forget Afghanistan is a landlocked country and most of the asylum seekers had probably never seen the ocean before. That would be scary for them. Fortune seekers such as during the Alaskan goldrush don't bring their families.

Also many of them were not Muslims but Christians. Perhaps they had come here thinking that our country's leaders were Christians!

And please answer the arguments of those who disagree with you but don't insult them. Often a good argument is lost because of the tone of the postings.

Wow, this thread is quite a read! Lots of things to comment on, but I’ll restrict my comments to the last post.

Logic, you wrote:

“Surely when people risk their lives to come here claiming that they are refugees and frightened for their future, we should have the decency to respect their views and be polite and helpful.”

and

“After examination of their claims we may or may not decide that they have a reasonable claim but at least treat them with dignity while they are here.”

Absolutely. But the situation needs to be kept under tight control.

I guess that you feel that putting people in detention centres is not respecting their dignity. But Australia’s detention system evolved from non-detention beginnings, through a phase of low-security centres and into the razor-wire lined centres as a matter of necessity, after people bucked the system.

“Oppressing them in the way Howard and Ruddock are doing in order to discourage them is not to my taste.”

What would you consider to be appropriately dignified treatment for asylum seekers? How are they being oppressed beyond what is really necessary?

“And please answer the arguments of those who disagree with you but don't insult them. Often a good argument is lost because of the tone of the postings.”

Totally agree.

David as you are obsessed with Chinese women having more than one child and call it a crime I have to point out that this woman was in detention for 4 years with no access to contraception. She was not in China and was prepared to go home after her baby was born. OK?

Ludwig. What sort of oppression do you think we should put onto people who have already seen their families murdered or been tortured, or seen their nation blown up? When people fly here they are not oppressed at all and oppressing refugees is illegal.

David your rant about the other nations closer to Iraq than here is deranged. All of the nations you claim could have been accessed by Iraq have appalling human rights records themselves - and our refugees who came were Kurds and shi'ites. Those muslim countries you are whining about are sunni.

As for Israel. Please spare me. They have one of the worst human rights records towards muslims than any other western nation.

Beside all that you could say those nations are closer to everyone who flies here. But here is the thing I said before - it makes no difference. Refugees are allowed to come here from anywhere on earth however they can.

Kapeesh yet or have you all lost your sense of common decency for fellow human beings.

Ludwig this is the only nation on earth that has ever legalised locking up babies and little kids and calling it border protection.

I would suggest that people bother to do some research, get your facts straight and come back to me on it.

Thankyou Marilyn

You basically said that because Australia has a good human rights record, pretty much ALL Middle East refugees should come here :) Well said. "My work is now done". Almost.

You neglected FRANCE GERMANY ENGLAND etc... which are all closer and LESS RISKY to reach.

You make an important point. "They can come here from ANYwhere in the world, HOWever they can."

So, again, you are totally neglecting the practical outcome in terms of our sustainable population, social cohesian and political stability, because the ramifications of your position are that we should open our borders to all and sundry. Well.. sorry, I have more compassion for Australians than to allow that to happen.

You are the one obsessed with the Chinese lady. I told you, I'm not prepared to look at 'case by case' situations, well deserving of compassion as they may be. Of course.. individual cases should be treated with sympathy. UNTIL WE CHANGE OUR LAW.... and that...is the important issue.

and of course...that is MY POINT.

As long as we have immigration laws which allow abuse and opportunism by:
-Job/Country shoppers
-Left wing Lawyers who defend such people from the PUBLIC purse (Legal Aid)

We will have a mix of genuine and non genuine. As soon as we fix our legal situation, and make it more immune to such abuse and opportunism, we will not be having this debate.

The ONLY rational and ultimately compassionate approach to refugees is one which protects not only them, but us. You know what happens at the billabong in the dry season when the water/grass dissappears, when the rabbits and roos have overbred..they ALL DIE HORRIBLY due to lack of food and water.

So, no matter WHICH way you look at this issue, there WILL COME A POINT (Yes..shouting) where it becomes neccessary to say "That's it...no more" and no matter how terrible their circumstances, the door will have to remain closed. Agreed ?
So, better we make the laws now, than doing it on the run after it's too late.

P.S. have you noticed the drought ?

Marilyn

You can't resist a go at Israel can you? It is not even the subject of this debate. And you cannot resist rudness to those who disagree with you. You seem to think you are right and everyone else is wrong. On every subject!

Israel has a much better attitude to its Muslim citizens than many Islamic countries have to their Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian and Druze citizens. At least Muslims in Israel have a right to vote. But don't let truth stand in the way of a good hatred.

I suppose you wil now abuse me. But I tried.

Ludwig

I do think razor wire is not dignified teatment. The asylum seekers could be in main centres of population with association other Australians. And the children should be given schooling. And the polies should definitely not denigrate them as a vote winner.

BD - I made no reference to political parties in my question of you - you must have confused with another inquistor.

I simply asked - if we are at war in upper case as you put it - what is the next logical step to take agaisnt all those listed who are undermining our way of life?

And I was criticised for refering to the author of the article as a pedant - perhaps I should have said he was a man with a passion for detail - I meant no offence -

The questions posed need answers - it is not about immigration - that ship has sailed - there is wide spread agreement we need more immigrants -

The "Border Protection Bill 2001" is here:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/parliament/legislation/2001-border-protection.pdf

William Deane identified, in a speech at the University of Queensland, much of that which occupies those in this forum.

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=4509

Logic, Marilyn

I don’t like the idea of putting any non-criminal behind razor wire. But I would love to know what the alternative might be for asylum seekers.

Free movement in society has proven to not be a realistic option. Being held in low-security centres has also proven to be problematic.

Of course being held behind razor wire is not dignified. But it comes down to providing a reasonable quality of life and fostering what dignity we can within the necessity of a secure detention environment.

OK, so the treatment for some could perhaps have been better. I don’t know. But for many people, no matter how well they are treated within a detention regime, it would not be good enough. Only free movement would be acceptable.

You can imagine the outcry if a free-moving asylum seeker committed an assault, rape or other crime, or had this committed against them or broke the law in some significant manner due to ignorance of the law. Just one serious offence committed by an asylum seeker in the open community could galvanise the community against all asylum seekers. We would also be bound to see a lot of people fail to show up for appointments and attempt to abscond and meld into society.

Also, the continued high (let alone rapidly increasing) rate of influx in 2001 would have galvanised the community against asylum seekers. So the deterrence factor was extremely important. Just imagine the strife that would have ensued, for all involved, if the full potential of the developing influx at the time of the Tampa had occurred.

I think we need to get away from the notion that it is oppressive or unnecessarily undignified to hold asylum seekers in detention centres, and just realise the practicalities involved.

So all-considered, I think Australia’s humanitarian treatment of these people has not been too bad over the last decade. It could certainly have been a lot worse, or become a lot worse with a poorer handling of the whole saga.

Ludwig “Of course being held behind razor wire is not dignified.”

I know some of the managements staff previously from Baxter in SA. The TV’s and other fittings which were deliberately destroyed around that detention centre were charged off to the detainees who threw them, although who knows if they ever paid for there abusive behaviour.

Like you rightly said,

“I think we need to get away from the notion that it is oppressive or unnecessarily undignified to hold asylum seekers in detention centres, and just realise the practicalities involved.

So all-considered, I think Australia’s humanitarian treatment of these people has not been too bad over the last decade. It could certainly have been a lot worse, or become a lot worse with a poorer handling of the whole saga.”

Here, Here, Ludwig, we differ on so much but in this we concur.

When I saw a few years ago on TV the rabble of dirty anarchists trying to tear down the razor wire and facilitate the escape from legal internment of illegal entrants to these shores, I realized who else deserves to be locked up.

David BOAZ, I concur with your statement.

I recall the comments made back when Nixon visited China, Apparently Nixon got onto the topic of the right of people to freely migrate and China’s official attitude of non-migration. The official Chinese response was, OK you want refugees, how many do you want 10 million, 20 million?

Nixon did not pursue the offer.

It is all well and good do-gooders tossing around and wearing sackcloth and ashes berating government and the rest of us with their infantile views on the rights of illegal immigrants (OK Marilyn, you say they are “legal” and I say by that by attempting to circumvent the Australian migration laws they are “illegal”). I believe that illegal immigrants are not a special case, they do not deserve to move to “head of the queue” simply because they paid for a boat to get ahead of others who have respected the processes Australia put in place to manage the orderly patronization of refugees.

If I were a GENUINE refugee, I would welcome detention in a safe country. I would NOT be rioting, sewing up mouths, burning, smashing, throwing things.
And were I granted safety of tenure in the safe country, I would not be demanding privileges, breaking every rule, rioting and all the things that we now expect of Multi culture.
I would be glad to live a decent life and join in the life of my good, kind host country

Easy to say from the comfort of your computer desk mickjo

David

“…you are totally neglecting the practical outcome in terms of our sustainable population, social cohesian and political stability, because the ramifications of your position are that we should open our borders to all and sundry.”

“The ONLY rational and ultimately compassionate approach to refugees is one which protects not only them, but us.”

“…no matter WHICH way you look at this issue, there WILL COME A POINT (Yes..shouting) where it becomes neccessary to say "That's it...no more" and no matter how terrible their circumstances, the door will have to remain closed…So, better we make the laws now, than doing it on the run after it's too late.”

yes yes YES!

What a miserable debate, fueled by utter ignorance and parochialism. Gee, Iraqi society collapses through the 1990s under sanctions, corruption (abetted by Australia) and a brutal dictatorship, and a few hundred tragic Iraqis make it all the way to Australia in search of sanctuary. Who'd a thunk it? And what do we do? We look at these wretches, just a rounding error among out of tens of thousands of immigrants coming here every year, and watch them drown, then demonize their dead bodies. Marilyn, I admire your fortitude in fighting the good fight against the moronic commentators here. And Tony Kevin has written a great, compassionate piece, which does a great service in keeping the memory of such tragedy alive.

Thursday, 10 February 2000 SENATE—Legislation L&C 205
LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

Senator McKIERNAN—I am talking particularly about the boat people. They are the people who arrive on our shores – mainly on Ashmore Islands – and who put their hands up and say, ‘Find me, find me! Take me in.’ They do not use these exact words, but they want to be found. These are not people who are escaping the scrutiny of our Coast Watch people.
Senator Vanstone—Senator, I cannot resist! Perhaps you could tell Mr Beazley that so he does not keep raving on about this silly idea that we need a Coast Guard to locate the people. You at least realise that they want to be found; it would be helpful if your party realised that as well."

I hope this quote from February 2000 by Senator Vanstone is self-explanatory for DB, Ludwig and co.

Ludwig, Israel locks up refugees in as bad conditions as we do but they do get the right to apply for the courts to release them.

As for them being kinder to muslims - who on earth would that be? The 1 million muslim Lebanese people they just bombarded with 15,000 bombing runs, 1 million cluster bombs, phosphorous bombs and the demolition of their entire livelihood for the next 20 years as they planned three years ago?

Or the 3 million Palestinians they have walled in like bugs or are starving to death? Wow, it's nice to know th milk of human kindness abounds but that does not translate to hatred for Israel, just the bad behaviour of some.

And guys - again, it makes no difference what countries might have been closer, this just happened to be the cheapest place to get to.

Luwig

I was surprised that you me addressed in the same basket as Marilyn. We are not usually together. However we were at that point. I just wish that Marilyn would show the same recognition for Arab failures as she does for Israel and the same concern for Israel's rights and problems. Also a bit more accuracy would be good plus the language of a debater rather than that of the schoolyard.

But being held in low-security centres is surely not such a major problem and surely far better than razor wire detention and isolation.

Again Marilyn....

a mixture of truth and error.

'This is the cheapest place to get to'

How many on the Siev X were women and children coming to re-unite with fathers already here ?

How many fathers who are in fear of family persecution would abandon their families to this fate KNOWING FULL WELL that in Tribal societies, and particularly IRAQ..."IF they caint get you, they will get ya family"

So, this underlines the outright lie of these 'poor hapless Iraqis'.

SECOND.."If this is the cheapest place to get to"...what does THAT tell you about how MANY will be flooding to Australia as a preferred destination.

What does that ALSO tell you about the real issue.. "economic prospects or assylum"

There is a difference between CHEAPEST and SAFEST. Any person not considering safety is a fool, if for the sake of a bit more money they can actually arrive ALIVE.

Human rights records of countries who are signatories to and have ratified the UN convention is not relevant to the legal position only the emotional. I don't know what you mean by 'human rights' but I'd guess it means you feel they deserve a 5 star hotel rather than being detained. No, I'm not 'quite' serious there, but I think you get the idea.

You still have not responded to the 'broad policy' aspects of my post, claiming there will come a point where accepting people becomes unsustainable on MANY levels including the cultural and social.
I contend we have way past that point. You may disagree. That is what democracy is about.

I rest my case.

DB all of your arguments are totally spurious and if you had actually bothered to do some work over the years you would know it.

Before October 22 1999 every father who arrived without his family followed a centuries old tradition of hiding the wife and kids in a "safer" place before embarking on a dangerous journey. Would you dare to condemn the brave Jewish mums who threw their children from trains to save their lives? Then they would send for them as soon as possible after being granted permanent refugee status. This changed on 23 October 1999 because the number of asylum seekers was a whopping 921 that year. Of course the following year there were 4,000+ with most of them now being the wives and kids.

After all the waste of money with TPV's, denial of family reunion for up to 11 years for some, years in detention and so on, after the travesty of the Pacific "solution" and so on, including this particular tragedy - the wives and children are arriving safely on planes every day of the week.

The cost has been over $1 billion for jail on the mainland.

Now for the being swamped bit. From 1989 - 2006 about 70,000 asylum seekers have come here, 14,000 on boats.

During those years there has been - about 85 million tourists
over 2 million migrants nd so on.

Marilyn,

The fact that numbers may have been small and manageable to date is absolutely no guarantee that they will remain so in the future. Thirty years ago the UK also only got a few thousand asylum claims a year. Between 1997 and 2004 they had 490,000 such claims, not counting the immediate family members who are also allowed to come. In the US during the 1990s numbers had build up to around 100,000 refugees (plus 20,000 Cubans counting as such) plus 75,000 asylum claimants a year. (See the Don Barnett March 2002 backgrounder at the Center for Immigration Studies site (www.cis.org)).

Timothy J. Hatton of the ANU has written about the reasons for the build-up in numbers in the UK and other developed countries. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants know that they are likely to need a support network while they establish themselves, so avoid places where there is no community of their co-ethnics. Destinations slowly become more attractive as the numbers build up and will be serviced by people smugglers when the demand is there. There are also chain migration effects as people join relatives and friends from the same village.

You would have more credibility if you were willing to deal with the tough questions instead of just chanting that it can't happen here. Getting to Australia is hardly high tech. The most recent group of Papuans did it in a dugout canoe. If numbers do blow out how do you propose to deal with it? How much damage to the environment and how much misery among disadvantaged Australians are you prepared to tolerate before closing the door? If numbers have to be limited then how do we weed out fraudulent claimants and ensure that they are deported? What about the morality of tempting people onto leaky, unseaworthy boats? Is it possible that guilt over this question has made it attractive to blame dastardly right-wing Australians for sinking SIEV X?

I know not what the truth is concerning SIEV X. I do notice that Col Rouge And Boaz appear to be in a fierce contest over which is the biggest A#$@hole.
I am prepared to give Col a narrow win on points.
What do other posters think?

Oh, and these are the same posters who preach ad nauseum about the virtues of "Australian values". What a joke.

Sneekeepete says that we might as well take all of the boat people because "we know we need immigration". Certainly the corporate elite wants mass migration. They benefit heavily from cheap, exploitable labour and from making a killing on urban land speculation. So (indirectly) do their stooges in the media and in Parliament. However, benefits to the population as a whole are something else again. Robert Rowthorn, the Cambridge University economist, wrote in a recent column ((British) Telegraph 2/7/06): "As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."

The Productivity Commission report on immigration released last April also found that any per capita economic benefits were negligible, even though they did not consider negative effects on the environment of extra population pressure or on social cohesion, such as those recently reported by Robert Putnam of Harvard. (The Australian Bureau of Statistics in its last two 'Measuring Australia's Progress' reports found that every environmental indicator apart from urban air quality was getting worse.) There is no shortage of workers in Australia, apart from some specialised skills due to lack of training. We all know that the unemployment statistics are lies. Currently 16% of the working population gets all or most of its income from the welfare system as opposed to 3% in the 1960s when there really was full employment.

I accept that there are cultural benefits from diversity on a small scale and would be perfectly happy to support an even larger refugee intake, so long as the regular program was cut to compensate. People on both sides of this argument defeat their own case with personal abuse. Why should I care if someone I consider a traitor calls me a bigot, or vice versa?

Mickijo please do not tease us with the prospect of your becoming a refugee.

And I guess only disingenuine refugees become isolated, stressed and behave badly after prolonged period of incarceration? - so how come most of them have been declared legitimate?

Hey Hedgy...thats a bit mean... name calling with expletive... and trying to hijack the thread into an 'anti Col/Boaz' pogrom!

Never mind. I don't mind a bit of passion in debate. I can't quite see how your post contributed though.

Let me re-iterate. My primary contention is for sound, workable border protection/Immigration policy. Once we sort this out, there will be no need for this debate.

Hedgy..did you read divergences post about how the flood of 490,000 assylum seekers turned up on the UK doorstep ?
Do you see ANY social, cultural or political implications in this ?

One which stands out like dogs balls on a grashopper is the call for an Islamic republic by more 'enthusiastic' elements of the Islamic community. The construction of a MASSIVE mosque capable of holding 40,000 people.. does this kind of thing say nothing to you about social equalibrium, cultural impact or potential communal problems ?

I really don't think many of you diversity proponents have much of a clue about either life or history. Just a tiny example of how the natural human is. The Fayu tribe in Irian Jaya live in small family units, and meet once a year with other units together to work out wives. If they meet in the jungle on the way, they will have a long conversation to establish if they have any common family tie, and if they don't more than likely will kill each other.

Take away all the modern props and decorations and you have 'natural man' Still the same motivations.

The thing which brings OUT those natural primal actions is communal competition and social upheaval.

Hedgy.. would you accept a quota system for assylum seekers ?
if not, will you accept 'open slather' of as many as can reach our shores are all welcome, and if you accept this, do you believe that only a 'few' or many will come ?
If many come, (tens of 1000s) do you see any protential problem ?

please answer these important questions.

Marilyn Shepard

You can rant and rave all you want, but the policies worked. Australians have let pollies known in letters ten feet high that we do not want any more Muslims here.

I fear we are in for a very long election run up with the Tampa and Siev-x being exhumed so early in the piece.
I would imagine that the general population are so fed up with goings on in some of the muslim communities that anyone who expects to raise tears of sympathy for open migration slather would be better off spitting against the wind. An election winner they are not.
Our real sympathies are with our own countrymen and women who are suffering [genuinely] yet another drought.
But then one cannot expect any left winger to spare any consideration for their own people. No merit in it.

Hey you guys.

You can't criticise Marilyn and Hedgehog for intemperate laguage and then use it yourself. Let's all cool down. We are not threatened by a massive influx of green aliens from Mars!

Anyway many of the Tampa asylum seekers were Christians. This should not be such an emotional subject. The vast majority of Australian born Muslims will end up just like the rest of us. Laid back and disliking of authority.

There is a problem of a small minority and unfortunately John Howard is milking that for all his worth making the problem worse rather than allowing a sensible solution to develop.

Marilyn and Hedgehog.

I'm sure I've asked this before, but don't recall a very definitive answer.

What... is your preferred POLICY position regarding border control ?

I think Marilyn has in the past mentioned something vague like "We can sure accept a hell of a lot more than we are now".....

But can we tighten this up a bit ?

Can we agree on the following ?

1/ A lax border control policy will result in large numbers of people arriving on our shores from the Middle east and other places.
2/ This has been evidenced by the UK experience of 490,000 as pointed out by Divergence.

If we can agree on this, we can move forward. If we cannot agree on this, then there is little point in debating because it is abundantly clear that it is in fact the case based on experience from other places such as UK and especially now Spain (via its little colony in Africa) I mean..this is so real it is happening right NOW as I type so please don't deny it.

FORWARD MARCH.... assuming we are still together. Why can we not agree to some common ground here ?

Do we need 'deterrent' (detention etc) to avoid a flood ?
If not, and an unmanable flood does come, HOW will you counter this ?

If we can find comfortable agreement on these points, I'd say this has been a worthwhile exercise.

I hope you both (and others ) will take the time and trouble to give these questions some thoughtful reply.
cheers

I am new to this gane but the only person here I like is sneekee

Hedgehog

“…..appear to be in a fierce contest over which is the biggest A#$@hole.
I am prepared to give Col a narrow win on points.”

I will defer to your expertise, as far as an “A#$@hole” is concerned,

You obviously have a more practical “exposure” and experience in that area than either David or myself.

Although, deciding who would win in a “competitive” context I can understand, would present a natural challenge to you. The very idea of “competition” is alien to your rather inept view, where the “nanny state” prevails and directs us around like little ducks in a socialist shooting gallery.

Now hedgehog, run back and play with the moonrats and other Erinaceidae.

David BOAZ, do not be too hard on hedgehog, it is natural for him to reduce his comments to sarcasm and expletives, his only defense, before capitulation, when he is so obviously outclassed across every other comparative measure of individual assessment.

INKEEMAGEE2 “I am new to this gane but the only person here I like is sneekee”

Good, “sneekee” needs a friend, same as you need a spell-checker

I wasnt trying to contribute any expertise into the debate. I will mention that i recall similar hysteria in the late 70's early 8o's regarding those pesky Vietnamese boat people.
Who amongst us would not agree that Australia is a richer society for it ?
Mainly i just like to get under Col's skin,and i have refined it to an artform.
His views are so offensive i believe he needs whacked every time he bobs his head up.
The poor insecure soul then spends time defending himself and advising everybody how clever he is.

Logic, you wrote;

“But being held in low-security centres is surely not such a major problem and surely far better than razor wire detention and isolation.”

It seems that you are having a bet each way here. Why don’t you advocate no detention? If people are going to abide by the system and not try to abscond or obfuscate the process, then why wouldn’t you advocate a no-detention regime?

Alternatively, if people are going to play up then why wouldn’t you advocate a secure detention regime?

The middle ground of low-security detention doesn’t make any sense.

Why do you think that low-security detention would be any less isolating than ”razor wire detention”?

At the time of the sinking of the Siev X, it was reported that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Indonesia waiting to make the voyage to Australia.

After the Siev X sank the boats stopped coming so what happened to these people? Did they go back home, or somewhere else? Find another way to get here or absorbed into the community in Indonesia? Does anyone know?

The boats coming here were so overloaded and unseaworthy, it was only a matter of time before a disaster happened. The people the Tampa picked up were from a sinking boat and were lucky the Tampa was nearby.

For those that want a memorial, it certainly would be more suited in Indonesia, say the port of departure. Siev X sailed from Indonesia, it had an Indonesian crew. It sank not far from Indonesia in their area for search and rescue. Indonesian fishermen rescued the survivors and landed them in Indonesia. Why should not a memorial be put up in Indonesia? Much more fitting than Canberra and others may get the message that the voyage to Australia is dangerous.

Surely no one wants further people to risk all in such voyages.

I must run to the defence of my new found friend Inkeemagee2 - who cares if he can spell if he likes me!

And what happened, after the SIEV X snak, to the "hundreds if not thousands" of people clinging to the shores of Indonesia waiting to come here - they were never there banjo - there has never been a humna tsunami waiting to flood our shore or despoil our way of life.

And no we cant agree on the lax border control proposition BD - their is nothing wrong with border control - but border control and then persecution should not go hand in hand

Pssst Inkee.

Col can't spell either, he just thinks he is too clever for us :}

Take yourselves back five years; it is now 1600hours, Thursday 19 2001.
Four hundred and twenty one souls (PII's) are now in the water. It will be some 19 hours before rescue comes.
Most cannot swim and will drown quickly.
If you haven't read Tony Kevin's book by now, I suggest you spend some idle hours to read it.

Hedgehog, you flatter yourself if you think those (metaphoric) tiny spines are sufficient to get under my skin.

I guess you will have to be content in the realization that, when all is said and done, you have squarely placed yourself in the category of having all the effectiveness and influence and presence of a “little prick”.

Ludwig

The term low-security detention was yours. I assumed that you knew what it meant. All I am doing is questioning your argument that there is a serious danger of absconding. I am saying that if that happens in a few cases that is better than the awful high security detention that these people are now suffering.

The principal that our society is based on is that is that it is better to allow a guilty man to go free than to hang an innocent one.

Logic, the high-security detention regime evolved in Australia from an initial centre in Port Hedland with no walls or fences. Abscondment, escape, violation of due process or whatever you want to call it, was the direct cause of the development of razor-wire-lined detention centres.

Even in those centres, vehement attempts were made to break out.

Now, how are we going to know which asylum seekers are a flight risk and which aren’t? We can’t know. So they all need to be placed in the same secure detention environment. Even if we could somehow tell, there would be issues if we started treating people differently. And to have some people outside of detention or in low-security centres and some behind high walls and razor wire could be seen as very different and prejudicial treatment. The principle that they all be treated equally is highly important.

If a few make life harder for the rest, then that’s unfortunate. But it’s nothing unusual. Many laws, in fact most, are made because a small minority of people play up. And yet they reduce freedom of us all.

Hedgy..if you don't have an alternative, please don't call me names *biff* :)

MANDATORY DETENTION and NUMBERS.

The issue of mandatory detention should be seen in historical context.
It was introduced by LABOR with BI-PARTISAN support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia

All should read that link before making huge pronouncements.

An important QUESTION which arises out of this, is:

Given that the legislation was introduced DUE TO a FLOOD of Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees, DID IT....or DID IT NOT... result in the cessation of that FLOOD ?

From what I gather it did.

Why is there NOW a 'flood' of Africans seeking to enter the EU via the Spanish enclave in Melilla ? Is it possible that it has to do with the lax legislation regarding "anyone who manages to get their feet on the soil"

The European Federation of Young Greens (in Melilla) says this:

"The act of free movement, as well as the freedom to stay, are human rights*."

They then go on to explain the benefits of unfettered human movement and migration.
and..
"Solidarity with migrants in transit is not the same as trafficking"
and
"However, receiving money to cover costs of ethically motivated human smuggling" (is ok)

Notably, they pay ZERO attention to the cultural and social and political impact of such unimpeded movement EXCEPT that their silence on the issue underscores their OWN political motive which is that of International Socialism, which scrutiny would reveal they have a close connection to.

So, based on the actual verifiable EVIDENCE.. as opposed to emotional speculation and ill founded one sided compassion dancing with political naivity,.... the following conclusion is perfectly solid:

CONCLUSIONS.

1/ There is a strong POLITICAL motivation behind the 'open borders' mob.
2/ Lax border control = FLOODS of refugees. (yes.. it really does Marilyn)

The direct connection between tighter legislation and slowed assylim seeker numbers cannot be denied. Equally, that between lax border protection and LARGE numbers cannot be denied.

No BD - the big wave of Indo-Chinese refugees came through the seventies and early eighties -

while we always had discretionary powers of detention these were not mandated until the action of Gerry "the black" Hand - the leftist Minister for Immigration under the Hawke regime in 1992 -

that was the first toughening up measure and the wave of immigration ceased well prior to that

and since then we've tweaked the system into a much more brutal one - in the face of numbers no where near as high those who fled post Vietnam

So the link between tough laws and the cessation of immigration can be denied - it is a correlation at best - it was that wave once the new comers got established and Keatings love affair with Asia - that had the nation quaking in its boots about our Asianisation -

As I say all we've done is shift focus on another bogey man

Fair enough Sneeky.... I'm glad you have a good handle on that.

I've now read up on the rationale behind Gerry the black's and Labors policy.

1. To facilitate the QUICK assesment of assylum seekers.
2. To prevent 'slippage' into limbo of those who disagreed with any decision but who had been living among the community.
3. To avoid the cost of housing them in the community.

I totally agree with this approach.

Can you imagine the hassle of trying to track down people in the community who are already establishing roots, and if an adverse decision is made, would be less likely to comply ? I sure can.

Now.. the problem clearly arose in terms of 'extended' detention as a result of:

a) Disputed decisions, aided and abetted by migration agents and politically motived lawyers along with politically motivated grand standers such as the Greens and Democrats.
b) Deliberate discarding by assylum seekers of any information which might assist in identifying the true status of the people concerned.

I am not a total idiot. I know how it is possible to identify and verify the status of someone claiming to come from such and such a place.

1/ Ask them their village/town/country.
2/ Names of relatives and especially the head man/leader/chief.
3/ Find out the nature of any alleged persecution from those in that village, and from other contacts in the country.

I doubt that such an exercise would take more than a month or 3 because I can relate it to my wifes country and circumstances.

I don't think you looked at the bigger picture. Swarms of africans heading for the Spanish Enclave in Morocco to enter Europe. Why ? Lax border protection policy.

The UN information on 'reasons effecting choice of country' showed abundantly that it is NOT related to 'safety' but to kinship ties, economic reasons and ease of access.

A key issue is 'well founded fear' emphasis on 'well founded' rather than not well founded. Unless strict attention is paid to 'well founded' we could have every Tom Dick and Mohammed on our shores.

Well Sneekee, there must have been some people waiting to come here after the Siev X sank. 4000+ came the year before. That is an average of 80 a week, so must have been some in the "pipeline" which was the expression used. Even if the reported figures were exagerated there had to be some middle eastern people close to gathering for the next boat.

If we add the 68 survivors from Siev X to those that disembarked en route, that must be nearly another 100.

So the question remains. Where did these people go and how did they get there? I do not recall it being told how they got to Indonesia from Iraq in the first place and what travel documents they had to have.

I do hope someone can fill in these gaps in the saga

BOAZ_David,

People move from Morroco to Spain because it is a short distance in relatively sheltered seas. They travel in small boats. Australia is much more difficuly to get to.

It is a simple matter of logistics.

Banjo, I believe the 'boat people, entered Indonesia in the normal fashion then waited contact for a 'smuggler'. Once they were on board a vessel, they destroyed their passports and other identifying documents. It was all preplanned and costly. Then they landed here as poor 'asylum seekers'.

I'm encouraged by our governments focus on key words in the UN charter regarding the status of Assylum seekers. They must have a 'well founded' fear of persecution.
They also are not eligable if they have found employment in countries other than the one they claim they are fleeing from. This alone would disqualify the Bakhtiaris even IF they were confirmed to be Afghan as the father had work in Pakistan.

"Well founded".... The idea that a man can put his family in "safe" places and then abandon them and come to Australia alone, ala Marilyn Shepherd, is laughable. When was the last time you 'put your family' in a safe place OUTside your own social/ethnic/kinship group ? And if they are with them, they are tracable easily. Secondly.. and this is the zinger.. if the man can put his FAMILY in a 'SAFE' place..why the heck can HE not also avail himself of this SAFE place ? (errr tap tap.. assylum is not from 'safe' places)

"Member of a particular social group" has also been scrutinized closely by our government and rightly so.

Much of the UN charter terminology was based on specific events which no longer applied after 1951, but the terminology carried over.

The cynical attempt to malignantly seek some kind of memorial in AUSTRALIA for those lost at sea in international waters, who were not our citizens, who did nothing for us except drain our resources, is nothing more than a political cancer which should be given the most severe form of chemotherapy. The audacity of Tony Kevin and Greens to use this tragedy for base amoral political purposes and gain is shameful in the extreme. Their shame is only exceeded by the attempt to throw political holy water on it and purify it to the community,by shaming us, with the likes of Bob Brown talking about 'High Values'...choke..

Instead of this idiotic political memorial, lets instead put one there honoring some notable contributor to Australian life. Why not Albert Namatjira..or Weary Dunlop ? yep..I'd support that.

Col, dont bring your sexual experiences into this ,please.
We must draw the line somewhere.